From nsn@MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU Ukn Aug 2 20:42:24 1993 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Mon, 2 Aug 1993 20:42:22 -0400 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4246; Mon, 02 Aug 93 20:41:15 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 8870; Mon, 02 Aug 93 20:42:43 EDT Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 10:40:14 +1000 Reply-To: Nick Nicholas Sender: Lojban list From: Nick Nicholas Subject: Re: TECH: SE rafsi omitted in lujvo (was Re: dikyjvo, too, X-To: ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK X-Cc: Lojban Mailing List To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: from "Mr Andrew Rosta" at Aug 2, 93 06:05:51 pm Status: RO X-Status: Message-ID: The Seraphim surely rejoiced when Mr Andrew Rosta spoke thus: #Nick says: #> Thus le'avla must have the same place structure as #> selyle'avla, if they are indeed the same word, rather than le'avla meaning #> something else, eg. the word you say in order to borrow a cup of sugar. #But "se lehavla" and "se selylehavla" mean the same, right? And if one #wanted to lujvoize these, the lujvo would have to be "selselylehavla"? #(Tho I prefer fukpi zei valsi anyway.) Nice! Strictly speaking yes, though there is an escape hatch: a se le'avla (which is a se valsi, the le'avla meaning) is a selkemle'avla, and a se selyle'avla a selkemselyle'avla/selselyle'avla. This is fortunate, because the user may not realise (or agree) that le'avla is 'really' "short" for selyle'avla. ******************************************************************************* A freshman once observed to me: Nick Nicholas am I, of Melbourne, Oz. On the edge of the Rubicon, nsn@munagin.ee.mu.oz.au (IRC: nicxjo) men don't go fishing. CogSci and CompSci & wannabe Linguist. - Alice Goodman, _Nixon In China_ Mail me! Mail me! Mail me! Or don't!!